182 comments:

All we conservatives see are a wave of incredibly bad, but blatantly obvious, "unintended consequences"

Why do I oppose the immigration bill? Because I'm 100% certain virtually nobody knows what the bill actually contains. Obamacare's myriad problems became obvious months after passage --- when it was too late.

Any time anybody tries to push through a massive bill and shuts down debate, it should be voted against on principle.

Why do we not support gay marriage? Actually, I'd argue most do if it was passed legislatively. If the courts decide, then just how much shit is covered by the verdict is unknown for decades.

Who saw Roe v Wade basically permitting acts of infanticide? Even the biggest opponents of the decision at the time had no idea how far it'd stretch.

Certainly, the possibility for unintended, but highly predictable, consequences, is a reason to oppose these things. An even better reason is fear of the intended consequences, which are plenty bad on their own.

But conservatives seem to be a minority now and if the immigration bill passes they will be swamped so it won't matter anyway. All the wet dreams of ultra liberals like Freder will come to pass and there will be nothing that can be done about it.

Most things are not an either/or proposition. Regardless, the purpose of talking about bigotry is to avoid the real issues, because those are pretty tough to argue honestly for some people, especially when you just want your way. "Shut up" is a weak argument, but if it's all you got, ride that pony till it drops.

Speaking for myself, I was on the fence about gay marriage until I ran into the constant emotional appeals, ducking of meaningful debate, smear tactics, accusations of bigotry, refusals to consider consequences, the demands that it be passed now now now, constant boosterism, name-calling, and basic intellectual dishonesty almost across the board.

That shouldn't be the way something this important should be settled.

But that's pretty much the MO for Democrats these days and that's another reason to oppose it.

It isn't either/or. There is a mix of concerned citizens, bigots, and bigoted concerned citizens.

Regarding amnesty, though, I don't think a fresh flood of illegal immigrants can honestly be called an "unintended consequence". When you know something is going to happen and you decide it is worth it, that's "a side effect" or "collateral damage". An unintended consequence is supposed to be surprising.

That did not resonate with me because the whole time I was thinking: Support for wide open borders and codifying sodomy into law is not a desire to destroy society, it is a fear of being viewed as not open-minded, loving, and accepting. And that kind of erased the whole thing.

Um, lessee now, importing 35 million peons (they'd be kept in poverty and ignorance so they'd always vote Democrat, so it's not racist to call them that) solely to keep the Democrats in power.

That's about as evil, not to mention un-American, as you can get.

Sounds like a good reason to say, "No", to me.

As for same sex marriage, we know the "polyamorists" are already lining up their lawsuits and we've seen how bestiality and incest are beginning to be rehabilitated, so Scalia's prediction is coming true.

We know the same sex marriage crowd doesn't wants legalization or tolerance; they want obeisance.

Some of us have read some history, so we know what can happen when you let the floodgates open and we know support of the nuclear family works (God forbid we use that as a criterion) as a solid building block of society.

Anybody wonder who takes care of any kids born in this mess?

Or do we already know?

But the topper is the invocation of the ACLU whose activities, including making the streets decidedly more unsafe, has helped put this country in the mess it's in right now.

The concern trolling in that piece is a joke.

PS HotAir is showing a new USAToday/Gallup poll saying support for same sex marriage has increased since SCOTUS ruled. Given SCOTUS' esteem among the public is subterranean, isn't that something of a contradiction?

Many of the unintended consequences are intended, make no mistake, the ACA was designed to fail, the details were merely to extract some political favors while borrowning more money. But fail it will to clear the way for a single payer system. Immigration bill was to cement the hispanic voting bloc for the Dems.

Conservatism worries about "unintended consequences". Oh, wow, what an insight. This has only been a major issue in conservative thought since at least the time Edmund Burke wrote on the French Revolution.

I'm not meaning to bad-mouth the article, so as much as point out that it's preaching to the choir at The American Conservative.

This should be on NPR, at the Washington Post, NYT, etc. where it might open up some ears or eyes to some of the basic underlying concerns of conservatism.

By March 5, 1836, Col. William Barrett Travis had known for several days that his situation inside the old Spanish mission called the Alamo had become hopeless.

Several thousand soldiers under the command of Mexican Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna had Travis and some 189 other defenders surrounded.

The young Texas colonel - only 26 - was a lawyer, not a professional military man, but Travis knew enough history to understand that in a siege, the army on the outside usually prevails over the army on the inside.

So he gathered his fellow defenders that Saturday afternoon and gave them a speech.

"We must die," he began. "Our business is not to make a fruitless effort to save our lives, but to choose the manner of our death."

He saw three possibilities: Surrender and summary execution, trying to fight their way out only to be "butchered" by Mexican lancers or "remain in this fort…resist every assault, and to sell our lives as dearly as possible."

Then, with a flourish, Travis drew his sword and slowly marked a line in the dirt. "I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line."

Young Tapley Holland made his decision quickly, proclaiming "I am ready to die for my country!" as he jumped over the line. It's hard to picture it as a stampede - the men knew they were voting to die - but all but two of them walked over the line. Co-commander Jim Bowie, lying sick on a cot, asked some of his men to carry him across. Only Louis Moses Rose, a French soldier of fortune, remained behind.

That night, Rose slipped out of the Alamo and managed to make it through the enemy lines. He ended up in Louisiana and supposedly lived until 1850.

Every Texan knows what happened the morning after Rose made his escape. In the predawn of March 6, Santa Anna's forces breached the walls and killed every Texas combatant.(Line in the Sand, Mike Cox)

Still not convinced about SSM, but do back domestic partnerships. Immigration "reform" is something quite different. We would be legalizing tens of millions of illegal immigrants and their extended families who often have little more than a grade school education. They have few skills, except the ability to have children and they would get help to get on the public dole. Why does anyone want them? The Dems do because they tend to vote 2-1 or 3-1 Dem. give them a permanent majority for a generation. But the Republicans? Stupid.

Funny thing here is that we were pushing for a road to citizenship for STEM grads, and esp. those with graduate degrees. In other words, the best and the brightest. Instead, Hatch, in bed with high tech companies, got a big increase in indentured servitude for STEM workers, in H1B visas. So, we would be allowing in many millions of low skilled functional illiterates, while keeping out the best and the brightest, the type who have built many of the high tech companies that have driven our economy over the last 40 years.

But conservatives seem to be a minority now and if the immigration bill passes they will be swamped so it won't matter anyway. All the wet dreams of ultra liberals like Freder will come to pass and there will be nothing that can be done about it.

All of a sudden, within a year's time, that really happened?

You really believe that?

Pollsters who didn't tow Choom's line got a visit from Solly an' da boys. You really trust their numbers?

Any more than you trust the "reporting" of the networks or the Gray Lady or the WaPo?

You will be assimilated only if you really believe resistance is futile.

Conservatism worries about "unintended consequences". Oh, wow, what an insight. This has only been a major issue in conservative thought since at least the time Edmund Burke wrote on the French Revolution.

I'm not meaning to bad-mouth the article, so as much as point out that it's preaching to the choir at The American Conservative.

This should be on NPR, at the Washington Post, NYT, etc. where it might open up some ears or eyes to some of the basic underlying concerns of conservatism.

Funny thing here is that we were pushing for a road to citizenship for STEM grads, and esp. those with graduate degrees. In other words, the best and the brightest. Instead, Hatch, in bed with high tech companies, got a big increase in indentured servitude for STEM workers, in H1B visas.

I think massively increasing the number of H1B visas would be helpful, but also allowing H1B visas to remain in the US to seek work and a new sponsor for an extended period -- six months or so -- after termination. That would reduce the "indentured servitude" aspect of the visa, although it wouldn't help US workers all that much.

At the very least, I think the H1B visa process could be managed better. If the annual cap is reached in a week they could at least auction them off and generate a little revenue for the Treasury.

[the Alamo garrison is informed that no reinforcements are coming]Jim Bowie: Well, that's it. I'm taking my men out of here now. Cutting through to the north. You coming?Davy Crockett: Seems like the better part of valor. Graciela Carmela Maria 'Flaca' de Lopez y Vejar: Crockett? You are the famous Davy Crockett? You are just a bigot. (The Alamo, 1960)

Why do I oppose it? because I don't think amnesty serves a purpose and will lead to yet another influx of illegals.My step dad came here LEGALLY and went through long process to become a citizen. It's not fair that some are jumping the line and then expecting amnesty.Further, its the left doing its standard "if you aren't with us then it's because you're racist" arguments. Why is this an anti hispanic stance when allowing this couldn't be viewed as an anti all immmigrants but hispanics stance?It's purely a question of right and wrong. Follow the law. That goes for the illegal immigrants, but also govt. Stop with the sanctuary cities. Same as with gay marriage. If you can't achieve your result lawfully then just flaunt the law and do what you want anyway.

As to why specifically I'm against amnesty it's because of the argument that they're doing jobs that Americans wont do. We supposedly need this influx of labor because of these low paying jobs that americans wont die. Fine.BUt then if we legalize them, they will be doing American jobs, not the jobs that Americans wont do. Which means that this massive influx of people will be competing with Americans for low wage jobs. And then we'll still need to have people do the jobs that Americans wont' do.Which means we'll need more under the table immigration.

Why would you be fore adding 11 million people to the job pool and make them compete with Americans for jobs that Americans will do (because they are now Americans) when this country can't get out of 7.9% unemployment as it is and low level workers can't get jobs as it is.

If you want to set up a system whereby people being paid who are here illegally now get identified, sure I'm all for that. And if those people want to them apply for citizenship sure. But it hsouldn'be be a guarantee. It should strictly be a worker program where we can identify the workers who are here in the shadows currently.

Um, I oppose the immigration "reform" efforts because of the intended consequences: Insuring a one party state; wage suppression for another generation of American workers; the intention of turning the US into a Third World country with an enshrined ruling class.

"Why would you be fore adding 11 million people to the job pool and make them compete with Americans for jobs that Americans will do (because they are now Americans) when this country can't get out of 7.9% unemployment as it is and low level workers can't get jobs as it is."

In fact, shouldn't this be the liberal argument as to why THEY are against illegal immigration and this amnesty program? And here I am the conservative caring more about poor people then liberals.

If we're going to make it a point that we are now the world and must host the world, why don't we just expand our territory and make Mexico a state? Then there would be no illegal immigration at all. I'm sure all the La Raza types would be outraged that the gringos are taking their territory, but they seem to want to come into our territory. Cut out the middleman.

I woudln't want to deal with the hassle that is Mexico, so that is not a completely serious suggestion, but it makes about as much sense as continuing to grant amnesty over and over again.

It's just as bad to import STEM workers to compete with American engineers and programmers as it is to import Mexicans to knock our unskilled workers out of jobs. It's already happened to a great extent in Silly Valley.

Why promote this, while exhorting native kids to study science and math so they can make big money?

The tech moguls make me sick, with their phoney ads for a "conservative solution" while they stab us all in the back.

Hard core libertarians and conservatives who are for open borders are just for cheap cheap labor. It's just funny how the libs in their zeal to get more voters will throw poor people under the bus in their mad rush to create a banana republic in their district. Republicans should make the case that they are against this amnesty bill because they care about the poor. And why don't the democrats.

Hmm, and another post of mine gets posted (I saw it down in the comments) and immediately deleted. Apparently I've pissed off Althouse and/or Meade, as that is about the sixth time that has happened today.

Seen the lights go out on broadwayI saw the Empire State laid lowAnd life went on beyond the PalisadesThey all bought CadillacsAnd left there long agoThey held a concert out in BrooklynTo watch the island bridges blowThey turned our power downAnd drove us undergroundBut we went right on with the show

I've seen the lights go out on BroadwayI saw the ruins at my feetYou know we almost didn't notice itWe'd seen it all the time on Forty-second StreetThey burned the chuches up in HarlemLike in the Spanish civil warThe flames were ev'rywhereBut no one really caredIt always burned up there before

I've seen the lights go out on BroadwayI've watched the mighty skyline fallThe boats were waiting at the batteryThe union went on strikeThey never sailed at allThey sent a carrier out from NorfolkAnd picked the Yankees up for freeThey said that Queens could stayThey blew the Bronx awayAnd sank Manhattan out at sea

You know those lights were bright on BroadwayThat was so many years agoBefore we all lived here in FloridaBefore the Mafia took over MexicoThere are not many who rememberThey say a handful still surviveTo tell the world aboutThe way the lights went outAnd keep the memory alive

It's just as bad to import STEM workers to compete with American engineers and programmers as it is to import Mexicans to knock our unskilled workers out of jobs. It's already happened to a great extent in Silly Valley.

You can either import tech workers or watch the jobs get exported to where the workers live. Pick one.

Republicans need to kick the open borderers in their midst to the curb too. Stand for the rule of law, and middle america not being coopted for cheap labor and democratic votes.

Cheap labor will cut both ways, when voters relying on cheap wages (which is most of America will have to compete with even cheaper labor. Remember the whole lefty argument about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are geting poorer. Add 14 million poor people to the job market competing over limited jobs and see how much poorer the poor can get.

Hmm, and another post of mine gets posted (I saw it down in the comments) and immediately deleted.

I'm seeing this, too. So many times today that I'm copying my message into a text buffer before I send it.

I think I see the problem. There seems to be a bug in the Blogger comment system so that when we hit Blogger with as many comments as we do in a short period of time, the number of comments counter variable is not getting incremented fast enough or for each posting. The next comment in the queue then overwrites yours & then the comment counter gets properly incremented.

I bet this is Blogger's attempt to fix the conflicting edits issue creating another bug. very common in the programming world.

Synova wrote:s it a "fear" of unintended consequences or is it, rather, the rational expectation of unintended consequences?

That reminds me of when Instapundit always posts the job reports which invariably say someting like "the unemployment rate rose unexpectedly in the month of June."They always use that word unexpectedly, when we would use the word expectedly for the exact same job report.

As Inigo Montoya said: "You keep using that word (unexpectedly). I don't think it means what you think it means".

I say "no" to many things because I assume someone just wants to pick my pocket. This assumption is usually correct, because cash money is the intended consequence of most people's demands of me.

"Unintended consequences" are only surprises to those liberals who never learn from history or experience. We call them "fools." Those liberals who do learn from history and experience only act surpirsed. We call those liberals "politicians," the scum of the earth -- knaves.

Thus, we live in a nation chock full of pickpockets, fools, and knaves. We call this "the Obamanation."

There are only a limited number of jobs that Americans won't do. Farming jobs. Maybe some jobs in hotels. Stuff like that. There are many more illegal immigrants than will fill those jobs.When you watch the local gathering of workers trying to get a day job for a construction site the guy hiring drives up in a truck and picks about 10% of the workers and the rest go back to waiting for the next truck to pull up potentially offering jobs

Meaning, if we need workers to fill those jobs, and those are jobs that Americans wont do we need to tailor our immigration policy around that goal. Filling the jobs that need filling. Not making the world right for true equality. A guest worker program therefore is a great idea. Lets get people identified who can work at these specific jobs and if you can work then you can stay. We can even set it up so that if you are in Mexico we will post jobs that are needed and if you apply in Mexico you can get the job and the various papers allowing you to work, while there. There will be no sneaking across the border. But that's it. We're not going to solve the worlds poverty problem by making poor Americans poorer just beause we need to show "fairness and empathy and prove that we're not racist".I can't stand that we're being dragged down this road because of liberals constant appeals to sentiment and demagoguery. This isn't Fantasy land.

Actually, no. The concern is of known consequences. The mitigating circumstance is that certain dysfunctional behaviors can be tolerated when exhibited by a minority of the population. However, there is no legitimate cause to normalize a behavior which has no redeeming value to society or humanity.

Also, the principal concern of people should be elective abortion and the general devaluation of human life that it causes. There is no reason to believe that homosexual behavior will ever be exhibited by anything other than a minority. Their heterosexual patrons should stop using them as human shields for their cause.

As for amnesty, the problem is several-fold. One, it serves and will encourage displacement of Americans and legal immigrants, at work, at school, at the hospital, and throughout society. Two, it offers incentive to a selective rule of law, which is a cause for civil and human rights violations by government and affiliated institutions. Three, it ignores the causes which motivate mass immigration and migration.

As for bigotry, that is sanctimonious hypocrisy. There is no bigotry without hypocrisy. The effort to prosecute emotional extortion fails when the semantic games are exposed too strict scrutiny.

Mestizos' bell curve tops out at somewhere between 85 - 90. Calling racial differences in intelligence and behavior bigotry doesn't make them go away. The intended, not hidden or unintended, consequence of a massive increase in dull normals, leaving aside cultural friction, will be the death of liberty and the condition of ruling class and ruled class cemented in perpetuity. Nothing less is at stake and don't the rulers know it!

Only an evil bad person who hates gays and Mexicans believes anything else.

It's not an unusual human belief system either... at some time or other humans have believed that their pure heart, or the favor of God, would win judicial combat. A conservative might "fear" that a similar purity principle applied to modern politics will result in consequences entirely opposite from intentions.

But purity of heart doesn't require rational plans, purity of heart only requires those good intentions that haters like to believe pave the road to hell.

Mestizos' bell curve tops out at somewhere between 85 - 90. Calling racial differences in intelligence and behavior bigotry doesn't make them go away. The intended, not hidden or unintended, consequence of a massive increase in dull normals, leaving aside cultural friction, will be the death of liberty and the condition of ruling class and ruled class cemented in perpetuity. Nothing less is at stake and don't the rulers know it!

Icepick--when Meade or Althouse deletes a comment it will say, "This comment has been removed by a blog administrator," and I don't see that anywhere in this thread. Think it's just Blogger, not you being deleted.

Why does anyone want them? The Dems do because they tend to vote 2-1 or 3-1 Dem. give them a permanent majority for a generation. But the Republicans? Stupid.

The people pushing the bill (in both parties) aren't stupid. They want a flood of unskilled labor so they can depress wages on the low end of the scale. The Democrats are all tied up in their race-centric world view, so it's really only Republicans left to oppose.

I'm curious where the blacks are on this. Are they so enamored with Obama they don't realize this means no rise in entry level wages for decades?

Everybody who supports amnesty needs to take a good, hard look at Brazil, because that's the kind of society they're building. Minus the tiny bathing suits.

Hmm, and another post of mine gets posted (I saw it down in the comments) and immediately deleted. Apparently I've pissed off Althouse and/or Meade, as that is about the sixth time that has happened today.

Stand in the center of Mexico City and denounce any would be mexican interloper that dares cross into the US illegally and watch what happens. Do it here in the US and watch what happens. The dichotomy of reactions wouldn't shock anyone in the culture of PC/Multi-cultiness.

Yesterday I watched a football game on my phone while sitting at a baseball game. Surely somewhere there is a rule of American Culture that would have been violated by this egregious act, what with baseball being the American pastime and all.

The Dems do because they tend to vote 2-1 or 3-1 Dem. give them a permanent majority for a generation. But the Republicans? Stupid

Are they? I wonder.

If you assume that the people in question aren't leaving and aren't going to be rounded up and expelled -- and let's face it, those are both safe bets -- then their *children*, having been born here, are going to be US citizens no matter what happens today.

Even if that generation goes mostly Democratic, it could be worth trying to prevent it from going 90+% Democratic like the black vote did.

I think a great name for a band would be Moslems and Mexicans. Because they're so similar. Same religion, same language, same sense of affinity with Western Civilization. Yup.

So ed, which parts of Europe have been broadcast on your television screen? It's much safer and more informative than actually being there, right?

Whatever you do, make sure you block off the Tivo part on this waste of space called The Acropolis. Nothing good ever came out of Greece, especially. It's practically an extension of The Sultanate of Turkey - another backwards, culturally hostile backwater of Dar al Islam.

Someone doesn't understand the difference between multiculturalism and melting pot. Melting pot doesn't mean that nothing good ever came out of civilizations that assimilate. It simply means they assimilate.Assimilation is not a bad thing.

Rhythm and Balls said...I think a great name for a band would be Moslems and Mexicans. Because they're so similar. Same religion, same language, same sense of affinity with Western Civilization. Yup.

When I lived in Zurich in the early 90's I recall one or two outspoken Swiss reminding me that America's immigration problem was nothing compared to theirs: "At least they're nominally Christians and not antithetical to your values."

Marc Rich was living in next door Zug then and he was not antithetical to Swiss values which included hoarding ill-gotten wealth.

Can't think of two issues have less to do with each other. The amnesty bill is literally 100 times as important. The importance of the Gay Marriage is in the possible future consequences and what it seems to indicate.

Amnesty really is the whole ball of wax. It will change America forever and not in a good way. The Liberal Democrats and Big business are pushing it. This bill helps no one but them.

Ok, but Mexicans aren't "nominally" Christians. In my experience they are much more generous of spirit than the majority of the Protestants that I know. Most Latins are. It probably has to do with having larger families and is also extended to the more "established" Italians and Irish living along the Northeast.

I think Weber's concept of the "work ethic" extended, in true Swiftian sense, to a desire for smaller families as the kids were simply seen as financial drains.

So ed, which parts of Europe have been broadcast on your television screen? It's much safer and more informative than actually being there, right?

Yeah all those scenes of Moslems in Stockholm and Paris are meaningless, right?

News of NoGo zones in French cities because it's worth an infidel's life, even a gendarme's, to go in.

Just propaganda, right? We want to be just like the Euros because they're so civilized.

Nothing to see, move along.

Whatever you do, make sure you block off the Tivo part on this waste of space called The Acropolis. Nothing good ever came out of Greece, especially. It's practically an extension of The Sultanate of Turkey - another backwards, culturally hostile backwater of Dar al Islam.

Ok, but Mexicans aren't "nominally" Christians. In my experience they are much more generous of spirit than the majority of the Protestants that I know. Most Latins are. It probably has to do with having larger families and is also extended to the more "established" Italians and Irish living along the Northeast.

Catholics aren't Christians?

Ritmo's "expertise" with "Latins" apparently hasn't gotten to the point where he's heard that.

Turks aren't rioting to become more conservative, backward, or religious, you ass hat.

Neither has the word "nominally" become meaningless. It means "in name only".

Your reading comprehension is horrendous. Atrocious. At some point, reading nothing but UB40 forms has allowed your literacy to dwindle to a 1st-grade reading level.

Try reading ingredients, for crying out loud. Shampoo bottles. Anything. Your mind might not be the most terrible thing to waste, but it sure wastes a lot of thread space begging for clarifications that even a moderately more semi-literate American wouldn't need.

R&B, stop it. This weekend, various commenters discussed the issue of cyberbullying, particularly after Ann Althouse said this:Phrasing things that edutcher doesn't get wrong? If that is indeed even possible, it would be written at an absurdly simple level. That's nothing I'd want to do. I really don't know why you read this blog, but my working theory is you're a guy pretending to be a guy that misunderstands everything.

I'd quote more, but I won't be a party to such cruelty. Everyone needs a safe place and this is edutcher's safe place. I mean look at him. He has so little. Show some mercy.

Here is an example of what to say. Edutcher, you and your comments are valued and validated, regardless of what they say. For this is your safe place and you get a prize for participating.

See how easy that is? Please try to comment accordingly and make a stand against cyberbullying.

I think Weber's concept of the "work ethic" extended, in true Swiftian sense, to a desire for smaller families as the kids were simply seen as financial drains.

I think the invention of the Pill had more to do with that than Max Weber did. American Protestants -- at least the agrarian ones -- had large families too just a couple generations ago. American Catholics were just more reluctant to use the Pill because of RC teachings and practices. Catholic Mexicans just lacked access to it until recently which is ironic because the Pill was invented in Mexico.

I don't know what the truth is, but I like the story of Davy Crockett, after he lost an election, he said the public can go tho hell, I'm going to Texas. In the next year, I'm going to Texas. It's the new promised land.

Neither has the word "nominally" become meaningless. It means "in name only".

Ritmo, I said "nominally" because many of the first generation latino immigrants I've had as neighbors are from way farther south and more indigenous in origin. Not at all the stereotypical villagers of a Clint Eastwood spaghetti Western. And many of them are embracing other Christian sects anyway. I'm only going on personal experience here --not googled-up opinions.

Maybe one of the reasons Republicans have problems is that "no" is a negative word. People don't like negative. Negative is mean and cynical. We like "yes." Yes is positive and upbeat.

There's a movie called Yes Man about a guy who always says yes. Very funny, I thought, one of Jim Carrey's good movies.

There's a rock band called Yes. Imagine a rock band called No. Sounds like hard rock, maybe. Nyet. That's a good word. No is more fun in Russian. Nyet!

"Yes we can!" That was one of Obama's slogans. You really got to be a curmudgeon not to like that. Hope! Change!

Speaking of curmudgeons, I believe we nominated John McCain that year. Somebody told McCain he had to be happy. So he was always saying, "my friends." But nobody believed him. Should have gone with "amigo," amigo.

We have unwanted pregnancies because people can't say no. And then liberals are like, how can you say no to this pregnant woman? You're so mean! Choice! Liberty! Say yes again!

Liberals are not having a lot of luck with their slut walks. Apparently some people don't want to participate!

I've heard liberals are thinking about renaming abortion "marriage" because it polls well.

To repeat what several others have already said, it's the intended consequences to be feared. The Democrats want an immigration bill that will give them 20 years of low info voters and depress wages therefore keeping corporate donors happy, plus the Dems are continuing to betray American citizens to the benefit of illegal immigrants and corporations. (And that's just the beginning - it's a bill that won't work, won't reform illegal immigration and will be "fixed" by another worthless, harmful bill.) They're giving away America, to the detriment of citizens, in order to maintain their power and wealth.

Saint croix wrote:Maybe one of the reasons Republicans have problems is that "no" is a negative word. People don't like negative. Negative is mean and cynical. We like "yes." Yes is positive and upbeat.

that's a good idea for a topic for Althouse. Why do liberals always say yes?

Also, it really does show Althouse's bias the way she phrases the question. Because conservatives say yes all the time. yes to traditional marriage. Lower taxes? Yes. Less govt intrustion. Yes.Less nanny statism. Yes.Yes lefty feel goodism that doesn't work. hell yes.More legal immigration less illegal immigration? yes. Build the fence on the borders. Yes.There are plenty of questions where conservatives will say yes.

I think the fumpndamental question is why do conservatives say no. Usually its because liberalism is being proposed.

So... I assert that good intentions do not assure good results and Ritmo comes back with something about evil intentions? As if the logic that good intentions do not cause good results means that evil intentions must?

But I suppose that supports my point about the magical thinking involved with a political philosophy centered on intentions, good or evil, and policy based on wishful thinking and the preferred end result that centers on the person encompassing the intentions rather than persons external to the process, beginning to end, of proving how much you care through your politics.

The poor, or desperate, or oppressed or unemployed will just sort of... have everything work out for them... somehow. Perhaps from the magical energy released by all the people patting themselves on the back.

I assert that good intentions do not assure good results and Ritmo comes back with something about evil intentions? As if the logic that good intentions do not cause good results means that evil intentions must?

The nonsense of the conclusion, whether you meant to repeat it sarcastically as I did, notwithstanding, most here know that conservatives aren't very interested in reason.

So I'll get to the point: You said what you said as a way to attack good intentions.

Well, no one said that good intentions assure good results.

But if you combine them - good intentions - with good reason, then good results stand a good chance.

Your alternative, to dismiss good intentions altogether - along with the reason that you, as a conservative, never had any use for anyway - is the surest way to arrive at nothing short of an array of bad results. One might as well try things by chance alone.

But that's ok. Bad results reinforce your conviction that the world is lost, and that fear of all the chaos you create around us is the best that humanity can hope for. So let's at least use that to better ourselves.

Don't pretend otherwise. There is no other way to understand the conservative psyche, and I've laid it out in a manner more generous than if you were to try it yourself.

The only question left, though, is why?

You hate boredom, I suppose. And this manufactured tension is apparently the only thing that helps alleviate it.

"There are only a limited number of jobs that Americans won't do. Farming jobs. Maybe some jobs in hotels. "

I've done both: migrant field work for $1.25/hr - $0.60/hr for a bunk and 2 meals a day, and I've cleaned hotel rooms for $3.25/hr + all the free booze left in the rooms. The hotel job was much better. I actually had to compete against other Americans to win those jobs too. I don't think you would get any takers today for such work and pay, except immigrants.

I'm doing a little better now, so it worked out well for me, but I don't think you could sell that career path to America's youth now. They've been told you must go deep into debt, and check the boxes as the first step in a successful life.

It is often quipped that the definition of a conservative is one that who prefers the devil he knows to the one the doesn't. I think conservative often say no to fundamental changes because we understand that our traditions and free institutions embody knowledge and wisdom that often defy articulation.

Progressives focus on the here and now. They think all that Is past is obsolete, and that which is new must be more advanced and better. They freely experiment with radical changes to ancient institutions and are comforted that they will be judge by their presumed good intentions rather than the broken lives left in the wake of their results.

They gave us a sexual revolution and no fault divorce. In two generations time we have a legacy of broke homes and lives, a fractured society, and millions killed by STDs. But conservatives are lampooned.

Traditional marriage and the mores supporting it was not about repressing sex -- it was about channeling a rapacious male sex drive is a societially productive manner.

Life covenant marriage was given legal recognition, not because of any theological directive, but because that it what was consistent with natural human law. Theology happened to coincide with biology, anthropology, and psychology. No fault divorce created at-will marriage. The sexual revolution undermined the social mores that channeled the male sex rive.

Our result is fatherless homes, animalistic flash mobs, and an amoral society that cannot explain what is right and why it matters.

Unintended consequences can be positive consequences. Anyone who relentlessly speculates about unintended negative consequences of same-sex marriage, but ignores the positive consequences of same-sex marriage, is being discriminatory. And any suggestion that they're the ones who care about children is laughable; excluding same-sex couples from marriage harms children. There isn't some big mystery about whether opponents of same-sex marriage are motivated by a desire to discriminate, just as there's no such mystery about opponents of interracial marriage. There's no need to try to look into the depths of their soul, when their position is plainly discriminatory.

ritmo wrote:But if you combine them - good intentions - with good reason, then good results stand a good chance.

I think the argument would be that what you say is good reason, is not in fact good reason. And you can see the result.It depends on what you're talking about, to be able to provide examples, but take the economy.There are ways to make an economy recover, and usually those are things that drive businesses to create jobs. And yet, Obama did the exact opposite. And we now see the results. A stagnant economy for almost two terms of his presidency. Because his reasoning wasnt to save the economy. He was all about "fairness" and redistribution, and pushing the democratic agenda. And YOU would probably say that that was "good reason". If your intent is to push the democratic platform, maybe. But if its to grow the economy? no.

JAC: Well, if we're gong to play that way -- there is no need to try to look into your mind, when your arguments are plainly shallow and dishonest.

But seriously...

Yes, I discriminate about lots of things. A window is not a door for example, even though they both open to the outside and allow one to enter and exit. I could use the window, but I always use the door.

It's likely you discriminate too. How are you on polygamy? A question frequently asked here but rarely answered by gay marriage advocates.

I ponder the negative consequences of gay marraige because the advocates mostly refuse to consider them. We've seen quite a lot of negative consequences from ill-thought-out liberal policies over the past hundred years.

Yes, I'm also aware of the positive consequences. I'm close to some gay couples who are married. I'm glad for them. But there is a bigger picture.

I'm not totally against gay marriage. I was on the fence until the past year when I saw how its advocates were often quite bigoted in their own way and intended to force the legislation through with no discussion and ample accusations of bigotry -- along the lines of your comment actually, though nastier and more emotional.

John wrote:"Unintended consequences can be positive consequences. Anyone who relentlessly speculates about unintended negative consequences of same-sex marriage, but ignores the positive consequences of same-sex marriage, is being discriminatory.There isn't some big mystery about whether opponents of same-sex marriage are motivated by a desire to discriminate, just as there's no such mystery about opponents of interracial marriage. There's no need to try to look into the depths of their soul, when their position is plainly discriminatory."

but just as you say that republicans aren't looking at the positive unintended consequences of gay marriage, you aren't looking at the idea that some might be for traditional marriage, without there being a negative animus towards gays.

In other words, believing that the reasoning behind marriage as it stood was a positive one worthy of defending from change. You accuse people of only looking at one side, yet you also think that you can look into their souls and glean their motivation and determine that the ONLY reason they might not want to change marriage is because they hate YOU.How are you so prescient about the inner workings of people's minds? There are a lot of,other ways that marriage is also restricted. Do you think the only reason for those restrictions is because people hate those they are trying to restrict.Ann Althouse says she is against polygamy. Polygamists now are trying to marry, and are thus being denied rights that you as a gay person think you should have. You may not think they deserve these rights, but they do. Does that mean that the only possible reason she might not agree with legalizing polygamy is because she hates polygamists?

What if a polygamist made this statement: "There isn't some big mystery about whether opponents of polygamy are motivated by a desire to discriminate, just as there's no such mystery about opponents of interracial marriage". Are you going to say Anne, who opposes polygamy is that bigot?

Because polygamists are discriminated against. They don't have the right to marry, just as gays don't have a right to marry, just as incestual couples don't have a right to marry. If they are denied those rights, they are discriminated against.

Some might make pro-con statements about whether certain restrictions should be lifted, but while they are in place people are denied rights. But do you think that all those restrictions should be lifted because those restricted are discriminated against?

It becomes a circular argument that essentially argues that society can't define marriage. But of course society can.

Even gay marriage proponents are saying that this doesn't mean that polygamy will become legalized, that gay marriage will only involve two people.

Well wait a minute, does that mean that gays still think it's ok to discriminate against marriages that involve more than two people? Even though polygamists are trying to get their rights now? Is that not plainly discriminatory based on your own logic.

If you asked anyone who's marriage was restricted, be it because the person they wanted to marry was too young or there were too many people or the person was a blood relative they would make the exact same argument that you would about gay marriage. That its discriminatory, that its akin to blocking blacks from marrying whites etc.

Churchill said that half of what he knew was wrong, but the trouble was he didn't know which half. I'm not smarter than Churchill so I'm willing to let the mills of democracy settle most issues. That said, I don't see how Obamacare can be anything but a disaster. Increased immigration will probably lower the wages of service workers, but, for all I know, that might turn out to be a good thing. Gay marriage? It won't have much effect one way or another on my life so why not.

I will argue it this way. Society has a right to define marriage based on what it values,and what it wants to promote or not promote. If it wants to promote the idea that marriage is there to promote the family structure that creates the children which will be our next generation then that's what it will do. Marriage between one man and one woman. That's not an anti gay argument, that's a pro biology argument.

So what are the implications of that? Well, it will mean that polygamists won't be able to marry the way they want to. Its not an equal protection argument because NO ONE can marry in a polygamous relationship. (Well, they can if they do it as a private action, but they can't get it legally recognized by govt)

How does this compare to inter racial marriages? If marriage is between a man and a woman, then you have to look at whether blacks can marry whites according to that description of marriage, and of course they can. But even though interracial marriages became legal, it still didn't mean that blacks and whites could marry as polygamists.

Equal protection means that anyone can marry anyone so long as they meet the restrictions for marriage set by the state. And those restrictions are they must be a mixed gender couple, and not a trio. They have to be a certain age and they can't be related by blood. And they can't already be involved in a marriage.

But proponents of gay marriage are arguing that equal protection means that they should be allowed to marry because the state cannot discriminate against gays. Its not equal protection, though if you are changing the definition to allow a couple to marry.

That doesn't mean that it might not be a good idea to change that restriction. Maybe polygamy is actually a better family structure than a traditional marriage. Maybe incestual relationships are perfectly normal and we should all marry our mothers. That's beside the point though isn't it? Can society make those determinations or not, or can we not restrict when it comes to marriage? not just gay marriage, but marriage itself.

If we can restrict marriage, then those restricted will not be able to marry. Whatever those restrictions may be.

William wrote:Gay marriage? It won't have much effect one way or another on my life so why not.

but that's not a basis to change marriage is it? If they change the marriage age to 8, but you weren't marrying an 8 year old would it effect your life one way or the other? So why not?If mothers were able to marry their sons, but you weren't marrying your mom, would it impact your life one way or the other. So why not?Just because it won't personally impact your life doesn't mean that society must give a license for it, does it?

For most of our history, if you could manage to board a ship to America (or walk here from Mexico or Canada) you could live here.

In reality we tried to weed out the criminals, the sick and the mentally defective. We also had vast tracks of land that needed to be settled and factories that needed labor. The benefit to the country being that they became citizens and didn't claim 20 dependants back in the old country that they could claim on their taxes.

Too bad the conservatives' purported "fear of unintended consequences" did not compel them to stand up en masse and shout "NO!" at the relentless and mendacious advertising campaign rolled out to justify (and win our acceptance for) the criminal act of our attack against Iraq.

Robert Cook said...Too bad the conservatives' purported "fear of unintended consequences" did not compel them to stand up en masse and shout "NO!" at the relentless and mendacious advertising campaign rolled out to justify (and win our acceptance for) the criminal act of our attack against Iraq.

Robert Cook: "Too bad the conservatives' purported "fear of unintended consequences" did not compel them to stand up en masse and shout "NO!" at the relentless and mendacious advertising campaign rolled out to justify (and win our acceptance for) the criminal act of our attack against Iraq"

First of all, it was the UN approved, US Congress approved, Cease-fire negotiated conditions that allowed for the use of military force to remove Saddam.

So, lets put our Stalinist pals Cookies first lie into perspective. So much for criminal.

Secondly, there were many many many conservatives (of the Paleo and libertarian bent) who were screaming loudly their dissent against that action.

But since those voices are NEVER heard in the MSM or in whatever pink-diaper circles cookie runs in, he pretends those complaints didn't exist.

Cookie is batting .000 right now.

Big surprise.

Next thing you know Cookie will be along to explain how GHWBush was really to blame for Obama's expansion of the drone program 'cuz of secret SR-71 flight missions to exotic locales and secret meetings with nefarious Military-Industrial complex and Middle-Eastern types.

LOL

You can always count on your neighborhood commie to continue getting it all wrong.

How many imprisonments and lobotomies for homosexuals happened in Cookies Cuba "paradise" under Castro's regime again?

Robert Cook said...Too bad the conservatives' purported "fear of unintended consequences" did not compel them to stand up en masse and shout "NO!" at the relentless and mendacious advertising campaign rolled out to justify (and win our acceptance for) the criminal act of our attack against Iraq.

I'd love to have the pusillanimous Robert Cook out here for a night drinking beer around a chiminea with a couple of my war criminal neighbors.

Using blacks for electoral fraud is not new. I had a very old relative, long dead now, whose father told him about the reconstruction period in Alabama. He said, during elections, trainloads of freed slaves were transported from town to town, voting in every town. In those days they voted Republican.

I guess it should be somehow reassuring that you're back in your usual form...

For the record: at the time I thought deposing Sadaam was the best of our bad set of options (completely apart from the question of WMD, which I correctly recall as being only a minor postscript at the time), and I still think so. The fact that the left side of Congress by-and-large approved the AUMF and then immediately started working to undermine our actions there is a different matter, and definitely has to be weighed into the equation. However, I'm not at all comfortable giving them the hecklers'/traitor's veto w/o putting up a fight.

"First of all, it was the UN approved, US Congress approved, Cease-fire negotiated conditions that allowed for the use of military force to remove Saddam."

Nope.

That's the lie Bush and company told when it became apparent the UN was not going to vote to approve a motion to attack Iraq, (resulting in the motion being withdrawn). Res. 1441 required that Iraq comply with a renewed inspections regime--they did--and that it comply with its disarmament requirements-they already had, years previously. The United States did not allow the new UN inspectors, headed by Hans Blix, to complete their inspections, which, at the time they were told to pack up and leave Iraq for their own safety--given that the invasion was set to begin--had found NO evidence of noncompliance by Iraq, no sign of extant WMD or weapons programs.

The US did not want there to be a finding that Iraq was in compliance, as this would have removed their sole substantive basis to attack Iraq.

So, the inspections were halted prematurely, the illegal invasion was launched, and more than a decade later the catastrophic consequences are still ongoing.

Kirk Parker wrote: For the record: at the time I thought deposing Sadaam was the best of our bad set of options

That was my thought as well, but since then I've changed my mind. The speed with which the battlefield victors lost control of events was sobering.

It was tempting to make arguments for intervention in Iraq that treated politics and propaganda as secondary concerns, something to get out of the way or co-opt so we could get things done. In retrospect that was a horribly narrow assumption. Going to war in the modern world is endlessly political (as it always was) and must be in the view of the cameras.

The final success of the Anbar Awakening and the surge shouldn't blind us to the sum of death and destruction, nor to the ways we dodged much worse outcomes.

In an easily-imagined alternative history, Bill Buckner fields the ball cleanly. In another, John Kerry is elected president.

Well, Rusty, given that UFOs are "unidentified" flying objects, there's no certain explanation, as they are unidentified phenomena.

The simplest explanation, the one that probably applies to most such sightings, is that people see things in the sky they can't explain and so they convince themselves they've seen flying craft from outer space.

And then there are sightings that present apparent puzzling attributes and which are not so easily explained away.

Unintended consequences can be positive consequences. Anyone who relentlessly speculates about unintended negative consequences of same-sex marriage, but ignores the positive consequences of same-sex marriage, is being discriminatory. And any suggestion that they're the ones who care about children is laughable; excluding same-sex couples from marriage harms children. There isn't some big mystery about whether opponents of same-sex marriage are motivated by a desire to discriminate, just as there's no such mystery about opponents of interracial marriage. There's no need to try to look into the depths of their soul, when their position is plainly discriminatory.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination. Your use of it as a bludgeoning tool, aka hatred, bigotry is another affect of the speech code used by leftists like you to silence those that oppose your desires. It's plain and simple. Your homosexuality shouldn't be used as a means to horn in on an institution or an activity that is deemed of value to society at large which is marriage. The simple fact that you have the ability to marry in whatever state allows you to get married in doesn't engender any known benefit upon society simply because you can do it. SSM hasn't been around long enough to see what if any consequences, intended, unintended positive or negative will rise forth.

People discriminate on all kinds of things on a daily basis. This is no different. Characterizing them at their soul level to equating discrimination against SSM as evil is where you are simply wrong, but then again, that's what your leftist ideology engenders.

"...it was the UN approved, US Congress approved, Cease-fire negotiated conditions that allowed for the use of military force to remove Saddam."

Nope.

The US tried to get a UN resolution to approve attacking Iraq. When it became apparent the UN Security Council was not going to approve such a motion, the motion was withdrawn.

Instead, we glommed on to Res. 1441 and claimed that justified our attack.

It did no such thing. It required that Saddam comply with his disarmament obligations--he had done so, years previously, which we knew, as his son-in-law had defected and been debriefed about the destruction of the WMD and dismantling of the programs--and that he agree to a new regime of UN Weapons inspections--which he also complied with.

The inspectors were in Iraq were several months and, just before their mission was aborted prematurely--they were told to leave Iraq for their own safety as our invasion was set to commence--Blix reported they had at that time found no evidence of WMD or renewed weapons programs. (Post-war inspections confirmed this.) In other words, Saddam was in compliance with Res. 1441, and even assuming for argument's sake the lie that it substituted for a UN Security Council vote approving an invasion of Iraq, (which, of course, it did not), even under its own terms there was no legal basis to attack Iraq.

In fact, by our commencing our attack on Iraq before the UN Inspectors could complete their inspections, we were in violation of Res. 1441 inasmuch as we did not allow Hussein to fully demonstrate his compliance. (The primary reason for the formation of the United Nations, you will recall, was to prevent new wars.)

Kofi Annan in 2004 stated he felt the invasion was criminal under the provisions of the UN Charter.

"There isn't some big mystery about whether opponents of same-sex marriage are motivated by a desire to discriminate,.."

Really?

Just like people who are "anti-choice" clearly only oppose abortion because they hate women?

Althouse the other day said something about SSM and traditional marriage proponents having a clear common cause in strengthening marriage. I've said the exact thing for a long time.

But it seems "not a great mystery" that SSM proponents aren't even slightly interested in strengthening the institution of marriage. They seem most interested in making a statement about equality and never mind what they might break.

(If your given statement that I quoted is obviously true, so is the one I just made.)

The thing of it is that marriage as something strong and worthwhile and useful to society is currently at desperate risk. People may as well simply move in together until they decide to move out again. The actual benefits of creating a unified domestic situation where both (or all) members of the family are secure enough to build together over a life-time is pretty much gone. Instead of a good plan for future prosperity and security, marriage has become a very bad plan and clear risk as a spouse has the power to destroy you and your future utterly and at a whim.

There are clear and compelling reasons other than discrimination for those people concerned about marriage to oppose any additional liberalization of it, clearly and rationally attached to the seen results of previous changes such as no-fault divorce and destigmatizing to the point of encouraging children outside of marriage. The family is disintegrating before our eyes and the only possible reason to distrust more changes is a *desire* to discriminate?

Or is that just the reason that demands the least of anyone wanting to make changes? Because if it's not just people being mean, then someone will actually have to make an argument and explain the good results and propose a common cause to make marriage less... disposable.

We have two real-life examples of countries divesting themselves of nuclear weapons in a genuine manner: South Africa and Ukraine. Iraq's behavior during the UN "inspections" was so very different that it requires scare-quotes around the word inspection. Do you really not remember all the You Can Go Here/You Can't Go Here/You Can Look/You Can't Look games? Really?????

Althouse the other day said something about SSM and traditional marriage proponents having a clear common cause in strengthening marriage. I've said the exact thing for a long time.

Synova: Great comment overall. It'd be nice if JAC returned to reply but apparently not.

However, I wonder about the thought above. It doesn't necessarily follow. It could but it doesn't, so it strikes me as wishful thinking (and in Althouse's case it was also a stick with which to beat conservatives).

I live in San Francisco and know a fair number of gays, including a few married couples. Mostly fine people in my experience and I wish them the best. However, their point of view is basically libertarian -- they are interested in their right to live their lives as they choose, including their right to be married.

They are not interested in strengthening social institutions, which is somewhat understandable since social institutions have mostly worked against them historically, and they are reluctant to pass judgment on how other gays manage their relationships.

What would it look like for gays to strengthen marriage? Nothing likely comes to my mind.

"What would it look like for gays to strengthen marriage? Nothing likely comes to my mind."

While not making life decisions for anyone else: Apart from whatever doctrinal definition exists, marriage is making two into one and, as a verb, can be used to mean that... a marriage of flavors or of ideas or materials. If someone plucked that word out of a lexicon to describe the marriage of two types of metals, we'd assume that the melding at the seam would be complete or even undetectable.

So... if you want a MARRIAGE then have one, and if you don't want one then have something ELSE.

Gay people who want marriages, or heterosexuals who want marriages, or religious people who want marriages, can all want the same thing which, in poetic language, is becoming one flesh, to leave your previous family attachments and cleave to your wife or husband and create something new.

New... not temporary.

Oh, I understand that sometimes someone makes a grievous mistake and there must be a solution that doesn't involve murdering your spouse but it shouldn't be an ordinary and expected event.

A contract... written out or culturally assumed... where two people (or more) create a new Unit that gives long term domestic and financial stability and cooperation so that one may *trust* that someone will be there to visit your hospice and make your legal decisions into the future because you've not live alongside each other separately but built a life together...

Gay people who want marriages, or heterosexuals who want marriages, or religious people who want marriages, can all want the same thing which, in poetic language, is becoming one flesh, to leave your previous family attachments and cleave to your wife or husband and create something new.

New... not temporary.

Synova: Gay could do that and some will, no doubt, but my question concerns the likelihood.

Have gays given any indication that they intend pursue the institution of marriage as seriously as they have pursued the right to it?

None that I can see, and I'm not saying it to blame them. Why should they be expected to be any more serious about marriage than straights are?

The notion that gays and marriage traditionalists could go hands-across-the-water over strengthening marriage is a mirage, and one concocted in my opinion as another effort to coerce those who oppose gay marriage to shut up.

The likelihood to say "no" or "da" (or duh) is context sensitive. American conservatives, by definition, are not predisposed to extremism or fanaticism. They are classical... liberals, capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior.

"That creaking sound you hear is the sound of goalposts being nudged along....."

Heh. Rather, your claim that there were a legion of conservatives protesting our invasion of Iraq--undemonstrated by you, by the way, although I'm sure there were some who did see it would be, as it turned out to be, a ghastly catastrophe--was entirely beside my obvious and original point, a point I suppose was less than obvious to the obtuse, as I had to articulate it to you in my follow up.

We have two real-life examples of countries divesting themselves of nuclear weapons in a genuine manner: South Africa and Ukraine. Iraq's behavior during the UN "inspections" was so very different that it requires scare-quotes around the word inspection. Do you really not remember all the You Can Go Here/You Can't Go Here/You Can Look/You Can't Look games? Really?????"

And yet...after we invaded Iraq and we conducted yet another inspections regime...the findings were the same: there were no WMD or reconstituted programs. (BTW, Hussein never had actual nukes to divest himself of...he merely had programs to dismantle...and which he had dismantled. The actual weapons he had and which he destroyed in the 90s were non-nuke weapons: nerve agents and gas weapons.)

Hussein was in compliance with his obligations. Blix initially reported difficulties with Hussein's readiness to cooperate--a result most likely of his experience with the previous inspections regime, where many of the inspectors were actually CIA spies rather than UN inspectors--but ultimately Hussein did allow the inspectors ready access to every place they asked to inspect. Given his capitulation to the inspectors, and given that he actually had no WMD, one cannot say that his initial disinclination to yield on the matter justified the criminal invasion of Iraq, a debacle of mass murder and destruction for which we are wholly responsible.